Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2381	control, N = 1191	treatment, N = 1191	p-value2
age	238	51.30 ± 13.00 (23 - 75)	50.77 ± 13.33 (23 - 75)	51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75)	0.534
gender	238				0.316
f		194 (82%)	94 (79%)	100 (84%)
m		44 (18%)	25 (21%)	19 (16%)
occupation	238
day_training		6 (2.5%)	2 (1.7%)	4 (3.4%)
full_time		26 (11%)	13 (11%)	13 (11%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (13%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.7%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.5%)
part_time		42 (18%)	23 (19%)	19 (16%)
retired		57 (24%)	26 (22%)	31 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.4%)	4 (3.4%)	4 (3.4%)
shelter		4 (1.7%)	4 (3.4%)	0 (0%)
student		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.7%)
t_and_e		4 (1.7%)	3 (2.5%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		53 (22%)	28 (24%)	25 (21%)
marital	238				0.875
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.7%)
divore		26 (11%)	14 (12%)	12 (10%)
in_relationship		4 (1.7%)	2 (1.7%)	2 (1.7%)
married		71 (30%)	33 (28%)	38 (32%)
none		113 (47%)	58 (49%)	55 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.3%)	2 (1.7%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (8.0%)	10 (8.4%)	9 (7.6%)
edu	238				0.622
bachelor		48 (20%)	20 (17%)	28 (24%)
diploma		40 (17%)	24 (20%)	16 (13%)
hd_ad		6 (2.5%)	4 (3.4%)	2 (1.7%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		16 (6.7%)	9 (7.6%)	7 (5.9%)
primary		20 (8.4%)	9 (7.6%)	11 (9.2%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (10%)
secondary_4_5		65 (27%)	30 (25%)	35 (29%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.5%)	6 (5.0%)	7 (5.9%)
fam_income	238
10001_12000		8 (3.4%)	2 (1.7%)	6 (5.0%)
12001_14000		11 (4.6%)	4 (3.4%)	7 (5.9%)
14001_16000		12 (5.0%)	4 (3.4%)	8 (6.7%)
16001_18000		5 (2.1%)	3 (2.5%)	2 (1.7%)
18001_20000		10 (4.2%)	7 (5.9%)	3 (2.5%)
20001_above		40 (17%)	24 (20%)	16 (13%)
2001_4000		35 (15%)	17 (14%)	18 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (13%)	14 (12%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		21 (8.8%)	12 (10%)	9 (7.6%)
8001_10000		20 (8.4%)	11 (9.2%)	9 (7.6%)
below_2000		45 (19%)	21 (18%)	24 (20%)
medication	238	213 (89%)	106 (89%)	107 (90%)	0.833
onset_duration	238	15.16 ± 10.94 (0 - 63)	14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)	15.48 ± 10.60 (0 - 63)	0.655
onset_age	238	36.14 ± 14.78 (-18 - 72)	35.93 ± 13.78 (10 - 72)	36.35 ± 15.76 (-18 - 68)	0.830
diagnosis_schizophrenia	238	48 (20%)	23 (19%)	25 (21%)	0.747
diagnosis_delusional	238	13 (5.5%)	7 (5.9%)	6 (5.0%)	0.775
diagnosis_schizoaffective	238	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_schizoid	238	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_transient_psychotic	238	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic	238
no		238 (100%)	119 (100%)	119 (100%)
diagnosis_depression	238	129 (54%)	64 (54%)	65 (55%)	0.896
diagnosis_bipolar	238	23 (9.7%)	9 (7.6%)	14 (12%)	0.273
diagnosis_anxiety	238	82 (34%)	44 (37%)	38 (32%)	0.413
diagnosis_phobia	238	9 (3.8%)	3 (2.5%)	6 (5.0%)	0.499
diagnosis_personality_disorders	238	3 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.5%)	0.247
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive	238	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_other	238	29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (10%)	0.322
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2381	control, N = 1191	treatment, N = 1191	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	238	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	0.456
recovery_stage_b	238	17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24)	18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24)	17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)	0.677
ras_confidence	238	29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45)	29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45)	30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)	0.671
ras_willingness	238	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15)	11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15)	0.763
ras_goal	238	17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)	17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	0.415
ras_reliance	238	13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)	13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)	13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20)	0.636
ras_domination	238	9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)	9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)	0.211
symptom	238	30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70)	31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70)	30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56)	0.337
slof_work	238	22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30)	22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30)	22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)	0.748
slof_relationship	238	25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)	24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35)	25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)	0.286
satisfaction	238	20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35)	0.210
mhc_emotional	238	10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)	10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)	0.705
mhc_social	238	15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30)	15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30)	15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30)	0.974
mhc_psychological	238	21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)	21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36)	21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36)	0.948
resilisnce	238	16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30)	0.214
social_provision	238	13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)	13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)	13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)	0.050
els_value_living	238	17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)	16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)	17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)	0.370
els_life_fulfill	238	12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)	12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)	13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)	0.128
els	238	29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)	29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45)	30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)	0.186
social_connect	238	27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)	27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48)	26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)	0.382
shs_agency	238	14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	0.149
shs_pathway	238	15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24)	15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)	16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24)	0.080
shs	238	30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48)	29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)	0.098
esteem	238	12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)	12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20)	0.701
mlq_search	238	14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21)	14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)	15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)	0.182
mlq_presence	238	13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21)	13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)	13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)	0.496
mlq	238	28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42)	27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)	28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)	0.278
empower	238	19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30)	19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30)	0.377
ismi_resistance	238	14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)	14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	0.844
ismi_discrimation	238	11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)	11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)	11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)	0.966
sss_affective	238	10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	0.727
sss_behavior	238	10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	0.759
sss_cognitive	238	8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)	8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)	0.514
sss	238	29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54)	29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54)	29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)	0.804
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.111	2.98, 3.42
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.118	0.157	-0.426, 0.190	0.454
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.039	0.145	-0.245, 0.323	0.789
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.305	0.208	-0.104, 0.713	0.145
	Pseudo R square	0.009
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.0	0.273	17.5, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.160	0.386	-0.916, 0.597	0.679
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.209	0.275	-0.747, 0.330	0.449
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.862	0.396	0.086, 1.64	0.031
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.8	0.523	28.8, 30.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.311	0.739	-1.14, 1.76	0.674
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.706	0.467	-0.210, 1.62	0.133
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.27	0.674	-0.056, 2.59	0.062
	Pseudo R square	0.020
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.194	11.2, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.084	0.274	-0.453, 0.621	0.759
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.075	0.203	-0.324, 0.474	0.714
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.305	0.293	-0.270, 0.879	0.300
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.305	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.353	0.431	-0.493, 1.20	0.414
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.314	0.296	-0.266, 0.895	0.290
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.543	0.427	-0.293, 1.38	0.205
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.2	0.268	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.176	0.379	-0.567, 0.920	0.642
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.261	0.248	-0.225, 0.747	0.293
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.558	0.357	-0.143, 1.26	0.121
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.0	0.222	9.58, 10.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.395	0.315	-1.01, 0.222	0.210
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.001	0.247	-0.484, 0.486	0.996
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.858	0.356	0.160, 1.56	0.017
	Pseudo R square	0.014
symptom	(Intercept)	31.4	0.911	29.6, 33.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.24	1.288	-3.77, 1.28	0.335
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.06	0.774	-2.57, 0.461	0.174
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.324	1.116	-2.51, 1.86	0.772
	Pseudo R square	0.008
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.3	0.420	21.4, 23.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.193	0.593	-1.36, 0.970	0.745
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.257	0.399	-0.524, 1.04	0.520
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.474	0.575	-0.652, 1.60	0.411
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.7	0.525	23.7, 25.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.798	0.743	-0.658, 2.25	0.284
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.088	0.496	-1.06, 0.884	0.859
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.767	0.715	-0.635, 2.17	0.285
	Pseudo R square	0.010
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.9	0.663	18.6, 21.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.937	-0.660, 3.01	0.210
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.871	0.600	-0.305, 2.05	0.149
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.313	0.865	-1.38, 2.01	0.718
	Pseudo R square	0.012
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.8	0.343	10.1, 11.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.185	0.485	-0.766, 1.14	0.704
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.381	0.288	-0.184, 0.946	0.188
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.116	0.416	-0.931, 0.699	0.780
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.3	0.561	14.2, 16.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.025	0.793	-1.58, 1.53	0.975
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.652	0.490	-0.309, 1.61	0.186
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.001	0.707	-1.39, 1.39	0.999
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.8	0.648	20.6, 23.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.059	0.916	-1.74, 1.86	0.949
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.993	0.570	-0.124, 2.11	0.083
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.281	0.822	-1.89, 1.33	0.733
	Pseudo R square	0.004
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.405	15.5, 17.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.723	0.573	-0.399, 1.84	0.208
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.748	0.397	-0.031, 1.53	0.062
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.750	0.573	-0.373, 1.87	0.192
	Pseudo R square	0.028
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.260	12.7, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.706	0.368	-0.015, 1.43	0.056
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.179	0.254	-0.676, 0.319	0.482
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.502	0.366	-0.215, 1.22	0.172
	Pseudo R square	0.026
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.9	0.293	16.3, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.370	0.414	-0.442, 1.18	0.373
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.333	0.280	-0.216, 0.881	0.236
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.331	0.403	-0.459, 1.12	0.413
	Pseudo R square	0.012
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.5	0.306	11.9, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.664	0.433	-0.184, 1.51	0.126
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.244	0.272	-0.290, 0.778	0.373
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.312	0.393	-0.458, 1.08	0.429
	Pseudo R square	0.017
els	(Intercept)	29.4	0.555	28.3, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.03	0.785	-0.504, 2.57	0.189
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.601	0.476	-0.333, 1.53	0.209
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.617	0.687	-0.730, 1.96	0.371
	Pseudo R square	0.016
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.6	0.847	25.9, 29.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.03	1.197	-3.38, 1.31	0.389
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.228	0.708	-1.62, 1.16	0.748
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.76	1.022	-4.77, -0.761	0.008
	Pseudo R square	0.024
shs_agency	(Intercept)	14.0	0.466	13.1, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.941	0.659	-0.350, 2.23	0.154
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.376	0.388	-0.385, 1.14	0.334
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.426	0.559	-0.670, 1.52	0.447
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.4	0.377	14.7, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.958	0.533	-0.087, 2.00	0.074
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.635	0.344	-0.040, 1.31	0.067
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.182	0.497	-0.791, 1.16	0.714
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs	(Intercept)	29.4	0.804	27.8, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.90	1.136	-0.328, 4.13	0.096
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.670	-0.295, 2.33	0.131
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.593	0.966	-1.30, 2.49	0.541
	Pseudo R square	0.019
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.146	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.084	0.207	-0.490, 0.322	0.685
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.132	0.184	-0.492, 0.228	0.474
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.089	0.264	-0.428, 0.607	0.736
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.5	0.317	13.9, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.605	0.448	-0.274, 1.48	0.178
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.844	0.347	0.164, 1.52	0.016
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.750	0.500	-1.73, 0.230	0.136
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.3	0.387	12.6, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.378	0.547	-0.695, 1.45	0.490
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.871	0.394	0.098, 1.64	0.029
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.073	0.568	-1.19, 1.04	0.898
	Pseudo R square	0.011
mlq	(Intercept)	27.8	0.638	26.5, 29.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.983	0.903	-0.786, 2.75	0.277
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.72	0.660	0.425, 3.01	0.010
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.820	0.952	-2.68, 1.05	0.390
	Pseudo R square	0.011
empower	(Intercept)	19.0	0.416	18.2, 19.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.513	0.588	-0.639, 1.66	0.384
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.898	0.387	0.140, 1.66	0.021
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.268	0.557	-1.36, 0.825	0.632
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.237	14.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.067	0.335	-0.723, 0.588	0.841
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.272	0.276	-0.269, 0.813	0.326
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.607	0.398	-0.172, 1.39	0.129
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.282	11.2, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.017	0.399	-0.800, 0.766	0.966
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.448	0.323	-1.08, 0.184	0.167
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.641	0.465	-1.55, 0.269	0.169
	Pseudo R square	0.018
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.339	9.74, 11.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.168	0.480	-0.772, 1.11	0.726
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.418	0.309	-1.02, 0.187	0.178
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.686	0.445	-1.56, 0.187	0.125
	Pseudo R square	0.012
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.345	9.54, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.151	0.488	-1.11, 0.805	0.757
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.690	0.306	-1.29, -0.090	0.025
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.074	0.441	-0.938, 0.790	0.867
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.74	0.344	8.07, 9.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.328	0.487	-0.626, 1.28	0.501
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.537	0.309	-1.14, 0.068	0.084
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.577	0.445	-1.45, 0.296	0.197
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss	(Intercept)	29.4	0.969	27.5, 31.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.345	1.371	-2.34, 3.03	0.802
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.61	0.790	-3.16, -0.064	0.043
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.30	1.139	-3.53, 0.938	0.257
	Pseudo R square	0.011
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(376) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(376) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(376) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.71], t(376) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(376) = 66.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(376) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.33], t(376) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.09, 1.64], t(376) = 2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.55])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(376) = 57.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(376) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.62], t(376) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.59], t(376) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-9.81e-03, 0.46])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(376) = 59.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(376) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47], t(376) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.88], t(376) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.42])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.82], t(376) = 56.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.89], t(376) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.38], t(376) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(376) = 49.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(376) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.75], t(376) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.26], t(376) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.42])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(376) = 45.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(376) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.49], t(376) = 4.59e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = 4.68e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.16, 1.56], t(376) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.58, 33.15], t(376) = 34.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(376) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.46], t(376) = -1.36, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.51, 1.86], t(376) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(376) = 53.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(376) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.04], t(376) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.60], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(376) = 46.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.25], t(376) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.88], t(376) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.17], t(376) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(376) = 30.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.05], t(376) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.01], t(376) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(376) = 31.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(376) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.95], t(376) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.70], t(376) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.25, 16.44], t(376) = 27.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(376) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.61], t(376) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.99e-04, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.39], t(376) = -1.41e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -1.67e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(376) = 33.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(376) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.45e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.11], t(376) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.33], t(376) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(376) = 40.25, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.53], t(376) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-6.90e-03, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.87], t(376) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(376) = 50.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(376) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.31e-03, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.32], t(376) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.22], t(376) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(376) = 57.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(376) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88], t(376) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.12], t(376) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(376) = 40.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(376) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.78], t(376) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.08], t(376) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.32])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.47], t(376) = 52.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.57], t(376) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.53], t(376) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.96], t(376) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(376) = 32.56, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(376) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.16], t(376) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.76, 95% CI [-4.77, -0.76], t(376) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, -0.08])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(376) = 30.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(376) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.14], t(376) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.52], t(376) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(376) = 40.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(376) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.31], t(376) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-9.56e-03, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.16], t(376) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(376) = 36.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(376) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.33], t(376) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.49], t(376) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(376) = 87.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(376) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23], t(376) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61], t(376) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(376) = 45.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(376) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.16, 1.52], t(376) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.23], t(376) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(376) = 34.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(376) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.10, 1.64], t(376) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.04], t(376) = -0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(376) = 43.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(376) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [0.42, 3.01], t(376) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.06, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.68, 1.05], t(376) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(376) = 45.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(376) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.14, 1.66], t(376) = 2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.82], t(376) = -0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(376) = 60.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(376) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.81], t(376) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.39], t(376) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.54])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(376) = 41.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(376) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.18], t(376) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.27], t(376) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.09])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(376) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(376) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.19], t(376) = -1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.19], t(376) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(376) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(376) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(376) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, -0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.79], t(376) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.21])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.07, 9.41], t(376) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(376) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.07], t(376) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.30], t(376) = -1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(376) = 30.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(376) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-3.16, -0.06], t(376) = -2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -6.07e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.94], t(376) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,213.407	1,225.244	-603.704	1,207.407
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,214.103	1,237.776	-601.052	1,202.103	5.304	3	0.151
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,843.055	1,854.891	-918.528	1,837.055
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,843.157	1,866.830	-915.579	1,831.157	5.898	3	0.117
ras_confidence	null	3	2,322.782	2,334.619	-1,158.391	2,316.782
ras_confidence	random	6	2,309.978	2,333.651	-1,148.989	2,297.978	18.804	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,589.648	1,601.484	-791.824	1,583.648
ras_willingness	random	6	1,591.777	1,615.450	-789.888	1,579.777	3.871	3	0.276
ras_goal	null	3	1,923.727	1,935.564	-958.864	1,917.727
ras_goal	random	6	1,919.400	1,943.072	-953.700	1,907.400	10.328	3	0.016
ras_reliance	null	3	1,814.557	1,826.393	-904.279	1,808.557
ras_reliance	random	6	1,808.667	1,832.340	-898.334	1,796.667	11.890	3	0.008
ras_domination	null	3	1,716.142	1,727.979	-855.071	1,710.142
ras_domination	random	6	1,710.934	1,734.606	-849.467	1,698.934	11.209	3	0.011
symptom	null	3	2,721.059	2,732.896	-1,357.530	2,715.059
symptom	random	6	2,721.123	2,744.795	-1,354.561	2,709.123	5.937	3	0.115
slof_work	null	3	2,155.193	2,167.029	-1,074.597	2,149.193
slof_work	random	6	2,157.639	2,181.311	-1,072.819	2,145.639	3.554	3	0.314
slof_relationship	null	3	2,326.034	2,337.870	-1,160.017	2,320.034
slof_relationship	random	6	2,328.089	2,351.762	-1,158.045	2,316.089	3.944	3	0.268
satisfaction	null	3	2,496.068	2,507.905	-1,245.034	2,490.068
satisfaction	random	6	2,494.435	2,518.107	-1,241.217	2,482.435	7.634	3	0.054
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,969.027	1,980.864	-981.514	1,963.027
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,972.407	1,996.080	-980.204	1,960.407	2.620	3	0.454
mhc_social	null	3	2,355.442	2,367.279	-1,174.721	2,349.442
mhc_social	random	6	2,358.063	2,381.735	-1,173.031	2,346.063	3.380	3	0.337
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,468.416	2,480.252	-1,231.208	2,462.416
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,469.974	2,493.646	-1,228.987	2,457.974	4.442	3	0.218
resilisnce	null	3	2,151.576	2,163.412	-1,072.788	2,145.576
resilisnce	random	6	2,138.517	2,162.190	-1,063.259	2,126.517	19.059	3	0.000
social_provision	null	3	1,801.464	1,813.300	-897.732	1,795.464
social_provision	random	6	1,799.316	1,822.989	-893.658	1,787.316	8.148	3	0.043
els_value_living	null	3	1,886.517	1,898.353	-940.258	1,880.517
els_value_living	random	6	1,884.541	1,908.214	-936.271	1,872.541	7.976	3	0.047
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,901.632	1,913.468	-947.816	1,895.632
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,899.678	1,923.350	-943.839	1,887.678	7.954	3	0.047
els	null	3	2,349.275	2,361.111	-1,171.637	2,343.275
els	random	6	2,345.163	2,368.836	-1,166.582	2,333.163	10.111	3	0.018
social_connect	null	3	2,673.883	2,685.719	-1,333.941	2,667.883
social_connect	random	6	2,661.197	2,684.870	-1,324.598	2,649.197	18.686	3	0.000
shs_agency	null	3	2,205.224	2,217.060	-1,099.612	2,199.224
shs_agency	random	6	2,203.563	2,227.236	-1,095.782	2,191.563	7.661	3	0.054
shs_pathway	null	3	2,072.510	2,084.347	-1,033.255	2,066.510
shs_pathway	random	6	2,066.146	2,089.818	-1,027.073	2,054.146	12.365	3	0.006
shs	null	3	2,625.529	2,637.365	-1,309.764	2,619.529
shs	random	6	2,620.454	2,644.126	-1,304.227	2,608.454	11.075	3	0.011
esteem	null	3	1,411.775	1,423.612	-702.888	1,405.775
esteem	random	6	1,417.131	1,440.804	-702.566	1,405.131	0.644	3	0.886
mlq_search	null	3	1,978.582	1,990.418	-986.291	1,972.582
mlq_search	random	6	1,977.967	2,001.640	-982.984	1,965.967	6.615	3	0.085
mlq_presence	null	3	2,116.237	2,128.073	-1,055.118	2,110.237
mlq_presence	random	6	2,113.358	2,137.030	-1,050.679	2,101.358	8.879	3	0.031
mlq	null	3	2,502.245	2,514.081	-1,248.122	2,496.245
mlq	random	6	2,499.287	2,522.960	-1,243.644	2,487.287	8.958	3	0.030
empower	null	3	2,147.295	2,159.131	-1,070.647	2,141.295
empower	random	6	2,145.050	2,168.723	-1,066.525	2,133.050	8.244	3	0.041
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,773.399	1,785.236	-883.700	1,767.399
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,768.979	1,792.652	-878.490	1,756.979	10.420	3	0.015
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,906.031	1,917.868	-950.016	1,900.031
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,899.425	1,923.097	-943.712	1,887.425	12.607	3	0.006
sss_affective	null	3	1,991.993	2,003.829	-992.996	1,985.993
sss_affective	random	6	1,984.510	2,008.183	-986.255	1,972.510	13.483	3	0.004
sss_behavior	null	3	1,995.512	2,007.348	-994.756	1,989.512
sss_behavior	random	6	1,990.642	2,014.315	-989.321	1,978.642	10.870	3	0.012
sss_cognitive	null	3	2,000.552	2,012.388	-997.276	1,994.552
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,991.587	2,015.259	-989.793	1,979.587	14.965	3	0.002
sss	null	3	2,768.111	2,779.948	-1,381.056	2,762.111
sss	random	6	2,757.782	2,781.454	-1,372.891	2,745.782	16.330	3	0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	119	3.20 ± 1.21		119	3.08 ± 1.21		0.454	0.125
recovery_stage_a	2nd	75	3.24 ± 1.18	-0.041	69	3.43 ± 1.17	-0.365	0.340	-0.199
recovery_stage_b	1st	119	18.01 ± 2.98		119	17.85 ± 2.98		0.679	0.092
recovery_stage_b	2nd	75	17.80 ± 2.73	0.120	69	18.50 ± 2.69	-0.376	0.121	-0.404
ras_confidence	1st	119	29.82 ± 5.70		119	30.13 ± 5.70		0.674	-0.106
ras_confidence	2nd	75	30.52 ± 5.10	-0.241	69	32.10 ± 5.02	-0.672	0.063	-0.537
ras_willingness	1st	119	11.61 ± 2.11		119	11.70 ± 2.11		0.759	-0.065
ras_willingness	2nd	75	11.69 ± 1.96	-0.058	69	12.08 ± 1.93	-0.294	0.231	-0.301
ras_goal	1st	119	17.23 ± 3.33		119	17.58 ± 3.33		0.414	-0.189
ras_goal	2nd	75	17.54 ± 3.03	-0.168	69	18.44 ± 2.98	-0.459	0.075	-0.480
ras_reliance	1st	119	13.16 ± 2.92		119	13.34 ± 2.92		0.642	-0.113
ras_reliance	2nd	75	13.42 ± 2.64	-0.168	69	14.16 ± 2.59	-0.525	0.093	-0.471
ras_domination	1st	119	10.02 ± 2.43		119	9.62 ± 2.43		0.210	0.250
ras_domination	2nd	75	10.02 ± 2.27	-0.001	69	10.48 ± 2.25	-0.545	0.220	-0.294
symptom	1st	119	31.36 ± 9.94		119	30.12 ± 9.94		0.335	0.257
symptom	2nd	75	30.31 ± 8.81	0.218	69	28.74 ± 8.64	0.285	0.282	0.323
slof_work	1st	119	22.27 ± 4.58		119	22.08 ± 4.58		0.745	0.077
slof_work	2nd	75	22.53 ± 4.15	-0.102	69	22.81 ± 4.08	-0.291	0.683	-0.112
slof_relationship	1st	119	24.68 ± 5.73		119	25.48 ± 5.73		0.284	-0.255
slof_relationship	2nd	75	24.59 ± 5.19	0.028	69	26.16 ± 5.11	-0.217	0.069	-0.501
satisfaction	1st	119	19.90 ± 7.23		119	21.08 ± 7.23		0.210	-0.312
satisfaction	2nd	75	20.77 ± 6.49	-0.231	69	22.26 ± 6.38	-0.314	0.166	-0.395
mhc_emotional	1st	119	10.77 ± 3.74		119	10.96 ± 3.74		0.704	-0.102
mhc_emotional	2nd	75	11.15 ± 3.31	-0.211	69	11.22 ± 3.25	-0.147	0.900	-0.038
mhc_social	1st	119	15.34 ± 6.12		119	15.32 ± 6.12		0.975	0.008
mhc_social	2nd	75	16.00 ± 5.45	-0.212	69	15.97 ± 5.36	-0.212	0.977	0.009
mhc_psychological	1st	119	21.84 ± 7.07		119	21.90 ± 7.07		0.949	-0.016
mhc_psychological	2nd	75	22.83 ± 6.31	-0.278	69	22.61 ± 6.20	-0.199	0.832	0.062
resilisnce	1st	119	16.29 ± 4.42		119	17.02 ± 4.42		0.208	-0.288
resilisnce	2nd	75	17.04 ± 4.03	-0.298	69	18.51 ± 3.97	-0.597	0.028	-0.587
social_provision	1st	119	13.24 ± 2.84		119	13.95 ± 2.84		0.056	-0.441
social_provision	2nd	75	13.06 ± 2.59	0.112	69	14.27 ± 2.55	-0.202	0.005	-0.754
els_value_living	1st	119	16.88 ± 3.20		119	17.25 ± 3.20		0.373	-0.210
els_value_living	2nd	75	17.21 ± 2.90	-0.189	69	17.92 ± 2.86	-0.376	0.145	-0.397
els_life_fulfill	1st	119	12.50 ± 3.34		119	13.17 ± 3.34		0.126	-0.388
els_life_fulfill	2nd	75	12.75 ± 2.98	-0.142	69	13.72 ± 2.93	-0.325	0.049	-0.570
els	1st	119	29.39 ± 6.05		119	30.42 ± 6.05		0.189	-0.346
els	2nd	75	29.99 ± 5.38	-0.201	69	31.64 ± 5.28	-0.408	0.064	-0.553
social_connect	1st	119	27.56 ± 9.23		119	26.53 ± 9.23		0.389	0.233
social_connect	2nd	75	27.33 ± 8.16	0.051	69	23.54 ± 8.01	0.675	0.005	0.857
shs_agency	1st	119	13.97 ± 5.08		119	14.92 ± 5.08		0.154	-0.388
shs_agency	2nd	75	14.35 ± 4.49	-0.155	69	15.72 ± 4.40	-0.331	0.066	-0.564
shs_pathway	1st	119	15.43 ± 4.11		119	16.39 ± 4.11		0.074	-0.442
shs_pathway	2nd	75	16.06 ± 3.70	-0.293	69	17.20 ± 3.64	-0.378	0.063	-0.527
shs	1st	119	29.40 ± 8.77		119	31.30 ± 8.77		0.096	-0.453
shs	2nd	75	30.42 ± 7.75	-0.243	69	32.91 ± 7.60	-0.384	0.052	-0.594
esteem	1st	119	12.80 ± 1.60		119	12.71 ± 1.60		0.685	0.071
esteem	2nd	75	12.67 ± 1.54	0.111	69	12.67 ± 1.53	0.036	0.983	-0.005
mlq_search	1st	119	14.49 ± 3.46		119	15.09 ± 3.46		0.178	-0.274
mlq_search	2nd	75	15.33 ± 3.23	-0.382	69	15.19 ± 3.20	-0.043	0.788	0.065
mlq_presence	1st	119	13.31 ± 4.22		119	13.69 ± 4.22		0.490	-0.151
mlq_presence	2nd	75	14.18 ± 3.88	-0.349	69	14.49 ± 3.83	-0.319	0.636	-0.122
mlq	1st	119	27.80 ± 6.96		119	28.78 ± 6.96		0.277	-0.235
mlq	2nd	75	29.52 ± 6.42	-0.411	69	29.68 ± 6.35	-0.215	0.878	-0.039
empower	1st	119	19.00 ± 4.53		119	19.51 ± 4.53		0.384	-0.211
empower	2nd	75	19.90 ± 4.09	-0.369	69	20.14 ± 4.03	-0.259	0.718	-0.101
ismi_resistance	1st	119	14.42 ± 2.58		119	14.35 ± 2.58		0.841	0.038
ismi_resistance	2nd	75	14.69 ± 2.45	-0.154	69	15.23 ± 2.43	-0.497	0.185	-0.305
ismi_discrimation	1st	119	11.76 ± 3.08		119	11.74 ± 3.08		0.966	0.008
ismi_discrimation	2nd	75	11.31 ± 2.91	0.217	69	10.65 ± 2.88	0.528	0.174	0.319
sss_affective	1st	119	10.40 ± 3.70		119	10.57 ± 3.70		0.726	-0.087
sss_affective	2nd	75	9.99 ± 3.32	0.215	69	9.47 ± 3.27	0.569	0.347	0.267
sss_behavior	1st	119	10.22 ± 3.76		119	10.07 ± 3.76		0.757	0.079
sss_behavior	2nd	75	9.53 ± 3.36	0.359	69	9.30 ± 3.31	0.398	0.686	0.117
sss_cognitive	1st	119	8.74 ± 3.75		119	9.07 ± 3.75		0.501	-0.169
sss_cognitive	2nd	75	8.20 ± 3.36	0.277	69	7.95 ± 3.31	0.574	0.654	0.128
sss	1st	119	29.36 ± 10.57		119	29.71 ± 10.57		0.802	-0.070
sss	2nd	75	27.75 ± 9.31	0.327	69	26.80 ± 9.12	0.589	0.537	0.193

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(339.42) = -0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)

2st

t(377.88) = 0.95, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.57)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(291.91) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)

2st

t(369.43) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.59)

ras_confidence

1st

t(278.42) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

2st

t(359.14) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.24)

ras_willingness

1st

t(297.96) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)

2st

t(372.16) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.03)

ras_goal

1st

t(287.29) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)

2st

t(366.67) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.88)

ras_reliance

1st

t(281.83) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.44) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.59)

ras_domination

1st

t(307.02) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)

2st

t(374.86) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.21)

symptom

1st

t(273.63) = -0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)

2st

t(353.49) = -1.08, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.43 to 1.29)

slof_work

1st

t(284.80) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.97)

2st

t(364.88) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.63)

slof_relationship

1st

t(284.13) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.26)

2st

t(364.36) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.25)

satisfaction

1st

t(279.58) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)

2st

t(360.33) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.60)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(272.66) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)

2st

t(352.18) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.14)

mhc_social

1st

t(276.25) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)

2st

t(356.74) = -0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(276.76) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.86)

2st

t(357.33) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.83)

resilisnce

1st

t(288.75) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)

2st

t(367.61) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.78)

social_provision

1st

t(287.94) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)

2st

t(367.10) = 2.82, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.05)

els_value_living

1st

t(285.37) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)

2st

t(365.31) = 1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(278.00) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(358.70) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.95)

els

1st

t(274.59) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)

2st

t(354.73) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.40)

social_connect

1st

t(272.37) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)

2st

t(351.77) = -2.82, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-6.45 to -1.15)

shs_agency

1st

t(271.95) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.24)

2st

t(351.19) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.83)

shs_pathway

1st

t(280.49) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)

2st

t(361.21) = 1.86, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.34)

shs

1st

t(272.06) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)

2st

t(351.34) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.02 to 5.01)

esteem

1st

t(330.66) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)

2st

t(377.62) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)

mlq_search

1st

t(304.38) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

2st

t(374.22) = -0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st

t(293.57) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)

2st

t(370.27) = 0.47, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.57)

mlq

1st

t(295.74) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)

2st

t(371.26) = 0.15, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.26)

empower

1st

t(282.45) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)

2st

t(362.97) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.58)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(315.84) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)

2st

t(376.41) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.34)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(311.75) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)

2st

t(375.80) = -1.36, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(280.20) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)

2st

t(360.93) = -0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(277.52) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)

2st

t(358.18) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.87)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(278.74) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)

2st

t(359.47) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.84)

sss

1st

t(270.24) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.04)

2st

t(348.65) = -0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.07)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(186.39) = 2.29, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(165.10) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(159.52) = 4.05, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.93)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(167.63) = 1.80, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(163.18) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.46)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(160.92) = 3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(171.49) = 3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(157.55) = -1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.21)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(162.15) = 1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(161.87) = 1.32, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.70)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(159.99) = 1.90, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.42)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(157.15) = 0.88, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(158.62) = 1.28, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(158.83) = 1.20, p = 0.463, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.88)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(163.78) = 3.63, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.31)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(163.45) = 1.22, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.84)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(162.38) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(159.34) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.11)

els

1st vs 2st

t(157.94) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.20)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(157.03) = -4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.45 to -1.54)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(156.86) = 1.99, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(160.37) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.52)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(156.90) = 2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(182.11) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(170.36) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(165.79) = 1.95, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(166.70) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.25)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(161.18) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(175.33) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(173.54) = -3.25, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(160.25) = -3.44, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(159.15) = -2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.14)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(159.65) = -3.47, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(156.16) = -3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.53 to -1.28)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(180.71) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.33)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(162.19) = -0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(157.33) = 1.51, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.63)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(164.39) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(160.52) = 1.06, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(158.56) = 1.05, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.75)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(167.74) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.49)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(155.61) = -1.36, p = 0.349, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.47)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(159.62) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.05)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(159.38) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(157.75) = 1.45, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.06)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(155.26) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.95)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(156.55) = 1.33, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.62)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(156.73) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.12)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(161.05) = 1.88, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(160.75) = -0.70, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.68 to 0.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(159.83) = 1.19, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(157.18) = 0.89, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.78)

els

1st vs 2st

t(155.96) = 1.26, p = 0.419, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.54)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(155.16) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.17)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(155.01) = 0.97, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.14)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(158.07) = 1.84, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.32)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(155.05) = 1.52, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.34)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(176.98) = -0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.23)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(166.76) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.53)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(162.79) = 2.21, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(163.58) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.41 to 3.02)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(158.77) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.66)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(171.09) = 0.98, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.82)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(169.53) = -1.39, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.19)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(157.97) = -1.35, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(157.01) = -2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.29 to -0.09)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(157.44) = -1.74, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(154.40) = -2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.17 to -0.05)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance